(41) COMPARING STRENGTH AND POWER MEASURES BETWEEN DIFFERENT EVENTS IN COLLEGIATE TRACK AND FIELD ATHLETES

Purpose: The ability to achieve high levels of force production, as well as being able to produce force rapidly, may be related to track and field (T&F) performance. Sprinting, hurdle, jump, and multi-event athletes may share similar performance characteristics in their respective events, with sprinting being a common performance metric utilized among varying T&F events. However, other measures of strength and power may contribute to T&F performance. How measures of strength and power compare between different T&F events is less explored. The purpose of the study was to compare strength and power measures between different events in female collegiate T&F athletes. Methods: Female NCAA Division 1 T&F athletes (n=35, X±SD, height (HT)=168.3±6.8 cm, body mass(BM)=61.7±7.2 kg) completed varying sprint, jump, strength, and power tests, including static (30M) and flying (FLY) 30 meter sprints, standing long (LONG) and triple (TRIP) jumps, time to run 150 meters (150), distance in 50 seconds (50SEC), overhead back (OHB) and underhand front (UHF) throws with a 4 kg shot, a hop test for distance (DBL), and absolute and relative 1RMs for clean and squat. Participants were divided into subgroups based on T&F event, with the following subgroups used: sprints (SPR, n=11), jumps (JMP, n=13), hurdles (HUR, n=5), and multi-event (MUL, n=6). To compare differences in performance tests between events, a one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni adjustments was used (p< 0.05). Eta-squared (η²) and Hedges’ g effect sizes were calculated to assess the magnitude of effect. Results: Significant differences between groups were found for 150 (p=0.01, η²=0.30), 50 (p=0.02, η²=0.29), OHB (p=0.05, η²=0.24), UHF (p=0.002, η²=0.39), 30M (p=0.02, η²=0.29), 30FLY (p=0.001, η²=0.45) SQUAT (p=0.02, η²=0.30), and RELSQ (p=0.04, η²=0.31). Post hoc comparisons found differences between events. Compared to JMP, SPR had a faster 150 (19.01±1.60 vs 20.58±0.79 sec, p=0.01, g=1.24), greater UHF (12.56±1.40 vs 10.45±1.26 m, p=0.002, g=1.54), faster 30M (4.04±0.25 vs 4.31±0.22 sec, p=0.03, g=1.14) and 30FLY (3.49±0.24 vs 3.83±0.14 sec, p=0.001, g=1.69), and stronger absolute (114.55±22.71 vs 91.53±14.01 kg , p=0.02, g=1.19) and relative squat (1.81±0.28 vs 1.47±0.17, p=0.03, g=1.54). In addition, HUR performed better in 50SEC (341.40±21.23 vs 310.75±14.47 m, p=0.04, g=1.76) and 30FLY (3.51±0.20 vs 3.83±0.14 sec, p=0.02, g=3.09) than JMP. Conclusions: Differences between events were observed, with SPR and HUR outperforming JMP in multiple metrics. Some metrics that SPR and HUR performed better on were sprinting tests. As SPR and HUR may dedicate more training time to sprinting, this may help to explain these differences. However, differences were noted in squat strength between SPR and JMP. Lower body strength measures have been identified as positively associated with both sprinting and jumping performance. As squat 1RM was lower in JMP, this could identify an area for improvement to coaches. However, limited sample size and homogeneity of participants may have contributed to these findings. Practical Applications: Differences in strength and power performance were noted between some events. As some assessments may be more event-specific, understanding performance differences between T&F events may be relevant to coaches. Identifying areas for improvement may inform program design choices. Acknowledgements: None